--- title: "銀行業遊説者應在穩定幣收益禁令上接受勝利" type: "News" locale: "zh-HK" url: "https://longbridge.com/zh-HK/news/287057987.md" description: "美國銀行家協會（ABA）應接受《CLARITY 法案》中關於穩定幣收益禁令的妥協，這與他們的要求一致。全面的收益禁令對銀行貸款的影響微乎其微，而當前的妥協則保護銀行免受穩定幣的競爭。如果 ABA 繼續反對該法案，他們將面臨失去更有利條件和遭遇不利規則制定的風險。關鍵利益相關者支持該法案，ABA 應認識到妥協的好處，以避免不利後果" datetime: "2026-05-20T11:39:37.000Z" locales: - [zh-CN](https://longbridge.com/zh-CN/news/287057987.md) - [en](https://longbridge.com/en/news/287057987.md) - [zh-HK](https://longbridge.com/zh-HK/news/287057987.md) --- # 銀行業遊説者應在穩定幣收益禁令上接受勝利 - **Key insight:** Banks should be content with the compromise over the stablecoin yield ban in the CLARITY Act. - **Supporting data:** The White House Council of Economic Advisers released an analysis in April finding that a full yield ban would increase bank lending by just $2.1 billion, roughly two one-hundredths of one percent of the loan market. - **What's at stake:** If CLARITY dies or gets pushed past the midterm window, the alternative is a rulemaking fight the banks will lose, while a multitrillion-dollar payments technology keeps building the rails around them. The American Bankers Association is about to make one of the most consequential strategic errors a Washington trade group has made in years. The Senate Banking Committee voted out the Digital Asset Market CLARITY Act on a bipartisan basis, and now the stablecoin yield compromise that gave the banks most of what they asked for is ripe for them to take. All they have to do is let it pass. Instead, they are running a pressure campaign to blow it up. Look at what the compromise actually does. Senator Thom Tillis and Senator Angela Alsobrooks spent months negotiating a stablecoin yield framework that prohibits issuers from paying interest on idle balances and restricts economically equivalent arrangements through affiliates. That was banks' central demand. They wanted a hard ban on passive yield so stablecoins would not function as interest-bearing deposit substitutes. They got it. Activity-based rewards, like loyalty promotions tied to spending or transactions, survive, which the White House explicitly endorsed. By any reasonable measure, the banks won. And now they are trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The empirical case for going further has collapsed. The White House Council of Economic Advisers released an analysis in April finding that a full yield ban would increase bank lending by just $2.1 billion, roughly two one-hundredths of one percent of the loan market. The consumer cost of the same full ban is about $800 million. Even academic estimates cited by the CEA suggest stablecoin growth would put only around 40 basis points of downward pressure on interest rates over a decade. Federal Reserve Governor Stephen Miran reached similar conclusions in a November speech, noting that stablecoin issuers' demand for Treasuries strengthens, rather than drains, the dollar financial system. The deposit-flight narrative the ABA has been selling is not supported by the people actually doing the math. So, what is the real grievance? It is not hard to see. The banks collect roughly $187 billion a year in interchange and payment-processing fees, and stablecoin rails threaten that revenue line far more than they threaten deposits. When the ABA argues that a payment innovation endangers lending, it is worth asking which part of the bank income statement it is actually defending. There is also a whiff of overcorrection in the current campaign. The trades missed the implications of stablecoins in the original GENIUS Act negotiations, and they seem determined to make up for it now by fighting on ground that has already shifted. That is how lobbying mistakes get compounded. Here is the part the ABA's leadership needs to think about. Suppose the pressure campaign works. Suppose CLARITY dies or gets pushed past the midterm window and into the legislative graveyard of 2027 and beyond. What happens next? The trades would be left with Treasury rulemaking under the GENIUS Act, which does not provide the statutory authority to reach rewards in the first place. The status quo gets worse for banks, not better. Meanwhile community banks, which are increasingly partnering with stablecoin issuers for real-time settlement and cheaper correspondent banking, will build those relationships with or without the ABA's permission. The Senate Banking Committee chairman, Tim Scott, has led the bill through a successful markup and it is now barreling toward the Senate floor. Senator Tillis, free from the pressures of reelection, did the harder job of brokering a deal that crypto firms and banks could both live with. The White House, Treasury, the SEC and the CFTC have aligned behind the text. Every stakeholder that matters is ready to move. The ABA should take the win. The yield ban on idle balances is real. The restrictions on economically equivalent structures are real. The alternative is a rulemaking fight the banks will lose, while a multitrillion-dollar payments technology keeps building the rails around them. Take the win, or lose everything. ### 相關股票 - [CRCL.US](https://longbridge.com/zh-HK/quote/CRCL.US.md) - [COIN.US](https://longbridge.com/zh-HK/quote/COIN.US.md) - [GLXY.US](https://longbridge.com/zh-HK/quote/GLXY.US.md) ## 相關資訊與研究 - [EXIO 研究院深度解析｜CLARITY 或驅動 500 億美元穩定幣資產「離美赴港」](https://longbridge.com/zh-HK/news/286776289.md) - [Galaxy：Hyperliquid 生態重新吸納 USDC 成因及意義](https://longbridge.com/zh-HK/news/286703074.md) - [穩定幣崛起與 Coinbase 投資邏輯](https://longbridge.com/zh-HK/news/286242458.md) - [加密金融下半場：火幣賺幣在高波動市場裡重建「確定性」](https://longbridge.com/zh-HK/news/287165160.md) - [AI、穩定幣重塑金融業 勤業眾信揭「資料治理」成勝負關鍵](https://longbridge.com/zh-HK/news/287149460.md)